NDP leadership race 4

1774 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hunky_Monkey

R.E.Wood wrote:

Congratulations to Jagmeet Singh and his supporters. His acceptance speech inclusivity of the other candidates was welcome and a good first step as leader. Of course I'm disappointed in this result, and surprised at the lack of turnout in support of the other three candidates. With only 52.8% of members bothering to vote, I'm not sure it was a matter of Singh pulling massive numbers so much as the failure of the other three to pull bigger numbers, or perhaps people who would have voted for the other three didn't bother becuase they saw a Singh win as inevitable (catch 22). Whatever... onward we go. I'll be watching with interest to see where the party goes under his leadership. I'm feeling conflicted right now, so need a bit of time to process this result.

We all have those moments after our candidate doesn't win.  I've been there.  I was there after Jack Layton winning, a city councillor that few really knew, and thought "this doesn't feel like my party anymore for some odd reason"... then time passed.  

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

pookie wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

pookie wrote:

Hint: I don't Jagmeet Singh is fairly described as an "entry level candidate".

You can't compare being deputy leader of a provincial party (Singh) on the same level as a National Leader (Trudeau) of a federal party.  Plus Jagmeet hasn't even been elected as an MP yet!

Yet it was the NDP who called Trudeau not ready for PM as it is NOT an entry level position.

What on earth are you babbling about.  Do you even know how to debate?

Not sure what you are asking as everyone else here understood what I was saying.

Actually no-- you are comparing apples and oranges -- a leadership campaign with an election. Trudeau did not become leader based on precvious experience as a leader. I also think you are not considering the experiences that Singh does have.

Hunky_Monkey

josh wrote:

NDP will gain some seats in the 905, and add some seats in Vancouver.  And get wiped out everywhere else.  But their leader will be immaculately tailored.

Sore loser?  Seems so.  Pretty douchy as usual.  

I don't for one think the NDP will win the next election.  However, I think Singh has the greatest potential to grow.  I don't think we'll get wiped out everywhere.  Why?  He's a popular candidate.  

I'm a little tired quite frankly of this "Singh isn't one of us" or "Singh is an outsider" line.  It was used by Charlie the most.  And Singh's "supporters" weren't real New Democrats.  And as one "progressive", far left New Democrat said on social media, "an ethnicity took over".  The hard left is just as racist as anyone else it seems.  And that I think is the undercurrent to a lot of anti-Singh sentiment.  Charlie played into that too.  I spoke with a former cabinet minister in NS who supported Caron but almost voted Singh as her first choice because the type of attacks on him made her sick to her stomach.

I think we can make gains in places like Halifax and St. John's for example come the next election with the right candidates.  We can maintain our support in Quebec and gain some seats with the right campaign.  I see a nice chunk of gains in Ontario and BC.  Of course, it's a guessing game but apparently I'm more positive about the future.

Sean in Ottawa

A few things --

Do not write off Quebec. Quebec can warm up to someone who has courage and works at connecting with them on both ideas and language.

Do not write of Singh, he benefits from history and I suspect will avoid many of the mistakes Mulcair made, To be honest, I think Mulcair, if he had a do-over would also have avoided some of the mistakes he made.

Do not think of Singh as a superficial candidate. I think that would be a mistake and I certainly hope and expect to see substance.

Certainly the NDP has challenges but it is rather early to make presumptions about which ones it will meet and which ones it will fail at. Singh understands that he has to address Quebec and if he ever forgot he will be spending time with a caucus that will remind him.

Don't assume much of the federal parties' positions. There is little loyalty, Trudeau has significant advantages but some huge problems and there are serious unknowns when it comes to the economy. Provincial politics will also have an impact, especially in Ontario. The Conservative party is a huge variable as they could possibly win if everything went well for them or fail in a very spectacular way. This would have an impact on the NDP. It is not impossible to have a minority either and more than one election in a short time.

Singh as well may or may not connect with the public -- predicting the future may be fun but you need more data than we now have.

 

Aristotleded24

R.E.Wood wrote:
Congratulations to Jagmeet Singh and his supporters. His acceptance speech inclusivity of the other candidates was welcome and a good first step as leader.

It is much better than when Wab Kinew, in Manitoba, reached out to supporters of "the other campaign" in his victory speech and never mentioning Steve Ashton's name once.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
An ethno-religious group that joined solely to vote for him.  Not out of any ideological motivation.

I'm going to agree with HM on this one, because this exact accusation was thrown at Steve Ashton in the 2009 Manitoba NDP leadership race. That's essentially what happens during nomination or leadership campaigns is that the candidates attempt to sign up enough people that will vote for them to win. If the party is that weak that a large-scale sign-up of new members is enough to destabilize it and distort the public opinion, then that party needs to find ways of getting more people engaged and involved in the party all the time.

Debater

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I think we can make gains in places like Halifax and St. John's for example come the next election with the right candidates.  We can maintain our support in Quebec and gain some seats with the right campaign.  I see a nice chunk of gains in Ontario and BC.  Of course, it's a guessing game but apparently I'm more positive about the future.

Are the NDP gains going to come mainly from the Liberals?  Or can the NDP take seats from the Conservatives?

That is going to be the main question I have as we approach 2019.

In 2011 the NDP beat the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals, but it failed to beat the Conservatives.  The NDP needs to win over moderate conservatives/red tories, etc. if it is going to be successful.

Hunky_Monkey

Aristotleded24 wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:
Congratulations to Jagmeet Singh and his supporters. His acceptance speech inclusivity of the other candidates was welcome and a good first step as leader.

It is much better than when Wab Kinew, in Manitoba, reached out to supporters of "the other campaign" in his victory speech and never mentioning Steve Ashton's name once.

After Steve Ashton going after Kinew the way he did, it's not a surprise there.  But I digress.

Hunky_Monkey

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:
An ethno-religious group that joined solely to vote for him.  Not out of any ideological motivation.

I'm going to agree with HM on this one, because this exact accusation was thrown at Steve Ashton in the 2009 Manitoba NDP leadership race. That's essentially what happens during nomination or leadership campaigns is that the candidates attempt to sign up enough people that will vote for them to win. If the party is that weak that a large-scale sign-up of new members is enough to destabilize it and distort the public opinion, then that party needs to find ways of getting more people engaged and involved in the party all the time.

It's beyond sad that people like josh take issue with all the new people Singh brought in.  While they didn't write the NDP Purity Test that josh drafted, I'm sure they'll make a positive addition to the party.   And many weren't from an "ethno-religious" community.   But many were thankfully.  Quite frankly, so sorely needed.  We almost look like a Klan party at conventions where everyone is white.  We need more young people and more POC in this party.  Singh is the one to do it.

And Aristotleded24, should I be worried or should you be worried with all the agreeing you're doing with me?  ;)

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The NDP should have gone after Trudeau on specific policy. I am sure they will not fail to do this next time.

So far Jagmeet has gone after Trudeau for Electoral Reform, Pipelines and Indigenous Issues. Talking about Electoral Reform is not a vote getter (like C51) and Pipelines will only hurt Rachel Notley

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
And no, it is not hypocritical for a party to float a message, lose, get rid of the old leadership and come back with a different message.

Except that the message they are coming up with is the one they were critical of Trudeau & his style for two years. Now they have done a 180 and elected a leader who can compete with Trudeau on style. That is the difference

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Singh does not do that badly next to Trudeau either.  

Except when every single sitting NDP MP said "Being PM is not an entry level position"

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 I think your contention that the NDP is all in with everything Trudeau did would find no takers here.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 I cannot say that the party will be better off in the next election but I am very confident that it will be a different campaign substantively as well as style.

NDP voted for a leader who could compete with Trudeau on style, and not policy. Which again is switch for two years ago when the NDP said policy should trump style.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
 The party will also be facing off against a government of Trudeau and Liberals rather than Harper and Conservatives -- for that reason alone the campaign will be different.

Remember what the NDP said in 2015 "We are the only party to stop the Conservatives"

or "We only need 35 more seats to defeat the Conservatives"

They can't say that anymore.

josh

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

josh wrote:

NDP will gain some seats in the 905, and add some seats in Vancouver.  And get wiped out everywhere else.  But their leader will be immaculately tailored.

Sore loser?  Seems so.  Pretty douchy as usual.  

I don't for one think the NDP will win the next election.  However, I think Singh has the greatest potential to grow.  I don't think we'll get wiped out everywhere.  Why?  He's a popular candidate.  

I'm a little tired quite frankly of this "Singh isn't one of us" or "Singh is an outsider" line.  It was used by Charlie the most.  And Singh's "supporters" weren't real New Democrats.  And as one "progressive", far left New Democrat said on social media, "an ethnicity took over".  The hard left is just as racist as anyone else it seems.  And that I think is the undercurrent to a lot of anti-Singh sentiment.  Charlie played into that too.  I spoke with a former cabinet minister in NS who supported Caron but almost voted Singh as her first choice because the type of attacks on him made her sick to her stomach.

I think we can make gains in places like Halifax and St. John's for example come the next election with the right candidates.  We can maintain our support in Quebec and gain some seats with the right campaign.  I see a nice chunk of gains in Ontario and BC.  Of course, it's a guessing game but apparently I'm more positive about the future.

I think you've cornered the market on douchebaggery on here.  If stating a fact is racist, then I plead guilty.

JKR

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

Debater wrote:

Jagmeet Singh - 53.8% (35, 266)

Charlie Angus - 19.4% (12, 705)

Niki Ashton - 17.4% (11, 374)

Guy Caron - 9.4% (6, 164)

Ashton did what she was supposed to do.  The other 2 didn't.

Ultimately Singh was the only one who did what he had to, namely sign up tens of thousands of new members.

He had a built in advantage.  An ethno-religious group that joined solely to vote for him.  Not out of any ideological motivation.

I agree that Singh had a built-in advantage. Because of this I think it is unfair to criticize Angus and Caron for coming in so far behind Singh. Caron seems to have been especially disadvantaged because the NDP's membership numbers are so low in Quebec. Obviously Singh and the NDP will be in trouble if the party does not grow their support beyond the Sikh community. But that is a big if. Singh seems to be very charismatic. That trait has been known to go far in politics.

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

josh wrote:
An ethno-religious group that joined solely to vote for him.  Not out of any ideological motivation.

I'm going to agree with HM on this one, because this exact accusation was thrown at Steve Ashton in the 2009 Manitoba NDP leadership race. That's essentially what happens during nomination or leadership campaigns is that the candidates attempt to sign up enough people that will vote for them to win. If the party is that weak that a large-scale sign-up of new members is enough to destabilize it and distort the public opinion, then that party needs to find ways of getting more people engaged and involved in the party all the time.

Don't disagree.  Nothing against the rules.  And the party was vulnerable to that.  

josh

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:

Debater wrote:

Jagmeet Singh - 53.8% (35, 266)

Charlie Angus - 19.4% (12, 705)

Niki Ashton - 17.4% (11, 374)

Guy Caron - 9.4% (6, 164)

Ashton did what she was supposed to do.  The other 2 didn't.

Ultimately Singh was the only one who did what he had to, namely sign up tens of thousands of new members.

He had a built in advantage.  An ethno-religious group that joined solely to vote for him.  Not out of any ideological motivation.

I agree that Singh had a built-in advantage. Because of this I think it is mostly unfair to criticize Angus and Caron for coming in so far behind Singh. Caron seems to have been especially disadvantaged because the NDP's membership numbers are so low in Quebec. Obviously Singh and the NDP will be in trouble if the party does not grow their support beyond the Sikh community. But that is a big if. Singh seems to be very charismatic. That trait has been known to go far in politics.

Angus underperformed the polls.  Ashton met or exceeded them.  So even though this was her second leadership loss, I think she kept herself viable for a future run.

Hunky_Monkey

josh wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

josh wrote:

NDP will gain some seats in the 905, and add some seats in Vancouver.  And get wiped out everywhere else.  But their leader will be immaculately tailored.

Sore loser?  Seems so.  Pretty douchy as usual.  

I don't for one think the NDP will win the next election.  However, I think Singh has the greatest potential to grow.  I don't think we'll get wiped out everywhere.  Why?  He's a popular candidate.  

I'm a little tired quite frankly of this "Singh isn't one of us" or "Singh is an outsider" line.  It was used by Charlie the most.  And Singh's "supporters" weren't real New Democrats.  And as one "progressive", far left New Democrat said on social media, "an ethnicity took over".  The hard left is just as racist as anyone else it seems.  And that I think is the undercurrent to a lot of anti-Singh sentiment.  Charlie played into that too.  I spoke with a former cabinet minister in NS who supported Caron but almost voted Singh as her first choice because the type of attacks on him made her sick to her stomach.

I think we can make gains in places like Halifax and St. John's for example come the next election with the right candidates.  We can maintain our support in Quebec and gain some seats with the right campaign.  I see a nice chunk of gains in Ontario and BC.  Of course, it's a guessing game but apparently I'm more positive about the future.

I think you've cornered the market on douchebaggery on here.  If stating a fact is racist, then I plead guilty.

Wait... you know the next election results as fact now?  You know the exact breakdown of all Singh's supporters?  Are the "ethno-religious" ones not real voters?  Not real Canadians?  Not real New Democrats?  Those are your facts?  Amazing how bigotry seeps out when your candidate loses.

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Singh understands that he has to address Quebec and if he ever forgot he will be spending time with a caucus that will remind him.

Not until 2019, it seems.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Singh understands that he has to address Quebec and if he ever forgot he will be spending time with a caucus that will remind him.

Not until 2019, it seems.

And not if he plans on touring Canada most of the time. Something Trudeau did for two years, which the NDP eviscerated him daily about.

And here are the words of the late Jack Layton "If you don't show up to work, you shouldn't get a promotion"

Hunky_Monkey

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Singh understands that he has to address Quebec and if he ever forgot he will be spending time with a caucus that will remind him.

Not until 2019, it seems.

A leader without a seat still works closely with their caucus.  Ask Jack.  Ask Alexa.

Hunky_Monkey

Mighty Middle wrote:

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Singh understands that he has to address Quebec and if he ever forgot he will be spending time with a caucus that will remind him.

Not until 2019, it seems.

And not if he plans on touring Canada most of the time. Something Trudeau did for two years, which the NDP eviscerated him daily about.

And here are the words of the late Jack Layton "If you don't show up to work, you shouldn't get a promotion"

More twisting from the resident Liberal troll.  Singh will be showing up for work as leader.  He won't be an MP until 2019.  If he doesn't show up for work then, feel free to bring that line up.  You're very... simplistic... when it comes to all this, huh?  Sort of like saying Singh, a POC that worked his way up on his own merit while facing many barriers, is the same life experience as Zoolander with a famous last name who lived a playboy lifestyle and inherited millions from daddy.  Apples and oranges to anyone that isn't simplistic.

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
And many weren't from an "ethno-religious" community.   But many were thankfully.  Quite frankly, so sorely needed.  We almost look like a Klan party at conventions where everyone is white.  We need more young people and more POC in this party.

Yes! How can we credibly attack the other 2 parties for not representing avergae ordinary Canadians when the Conservatives are much better at reaching out to ethnic communities than the NDP is?

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
And Aristotleded24, should I be worried or should you be worried with all the agreeing you're doing with me?  ;)

Be very worried indeed! ;)

In all seriousness though, I think it's important that we all stick to issues rather than personalities. One thing I've learned and really try to practice as a supervisor at my job is not to take things personally and not to make them personal. If we can keep to those principles, then we should be able to survive most of our disagreements without becoming emotional wrecks.

Aristotleded24

Mighty Middle wrote:
And here are the words of the late Jack Layton "If you don't show up to work, you shouldn't get a promotion"

Jack also didn't have a seat when he won the NDP leadership race and somehow managed to do okay.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

 Apples and oranges to anyone that isn't simplistic.

Except his competitors (all three of them) said it is "simplistic" saying hard to be leader without a seat. Their words, not mine.

 

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Jack also didn't have a seat when he won the NDP leadership race and somehow managed to do okay.

If you mean raising his caucus from 13 to 19 in 2004 (without a seat) is okay?

Hunky_Monkey

Mighty Middle wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Singh understands that he has to address Quebec and if he ever forgot he will be spending time with a caucus that will remind him.

Not until 2019, it seems.

And not if he plans on touring Canada most of the time. Something Trudeau did for two years, which the NDP eviscerated him daily about.

And here are the words of the late Jack Layton "If you don't show up to work, you shouldn't get a promotion"

More twisting from the resident Liberal troll.  Singh will be showing up for work as leader.  He won't be an MP until 2019.  If he doesn't show up for work then, feel free to bring that line up.  You're very... simplistic... when it comes to all this, huh?  Sort of like saying Singh, a POC that worked his way up on his own merit while facing many barriers, is the same life experience as Zoolander with a famous last name who lived a playboy lifestyle and inherited millions from daddy.  Apples and oranges to anyone that isn't simplistic.

Except his competitors (all three of them) said it is hard to be leader without a seat.

*YAWN*

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

*YAWN*

I'd figure you'd be more gracious towards Charlie Angus and Guy Caron....

Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:
And here are the words of the late Jack Layton "If you don't show up to work, you shouldn't get a promotion"

Jack also didn't have a seat when he won the NDP leadership race and somehow managed to do okay.

Obviously having a seat in the House isn't compulsory for a leader.

But there are advantages & disadvantages to not having one.

It depends on the circumstances and the leader in question.

So we'll have to wait & see how it develops.

R.E.Wood

Ugh. So utterly depressing. This isn't just about my candidate not winning (been there & done that many times before!) - this is about the entire direction of the party, following on after the frustrating, depressing, & rage-inducing Mulcair alt-liberal years.

One thing I know is I am backing away from the party until I've had a chance to see where Singh takes it, what the party will stand for, and whether or not he grows into the role. I have very little confidence in the NDP's future at this point, and I will not be donating any more money or time, at least in the short term. He has lots of shiny, happy people who can pull the party out of its $5.5 million dollar hole and fill the coffers for the next election; he doesn't need me. Bright side: once I click "unsubscribe" at least I will be free of the endless party emails asking for my money!

Then I can just wait and see... and maybe the party platform (& Singh) will be something I can support in 2019. I'm open to that. Or maybe it won't. After the soul-crushing Mulcair years, I almost don't care anymore. Maybe there will be some new party on the left by 2019. I'd be open to that, too. 

KarlL

Ken Burch wrote:

Congratulations to Jagmeet.  I think he probably won it the day he faced down that heckler.

Hopefully, he'll follow my advice and give the other three candidates the following roles(I'm thinking the term "lieutenant" should probably be phased out).  

Guy Caron:  Quebec national leader

Niki Ashton: Social movement/activist youth/social media leader

Charlie Angus: Rural Canadian/working-class leader.

The three of them each have valuable council to offer, and the best of each of their ideas should be incorporated into whatever happens next.  In particular, I think Singh and Ashton could have a particularly useful working arrangement, since each has some sense of the changes the party needs.

While Jagmeet was never my first choice, it's a good thing that for the first time, a major Canadian political party is led by a person who looks like the global majority and a person of a non-Abrahamic faith tradition.  Those are things to be proud of.

 

Well, I think the thing was won in the membership sign-up.  With numbers like those, Jaggi could have fluffed the heckler exchange badly and still won handily. 

As a Liberal, I am used to strong community loyalties playing out in nominations and leadership races.  But it would be unfair to Jagmeet (who I have met on a policy file and rather liked) to describe him as a one-community or one-trick pony.  Sure he fished where the fish were but he offered more than that.

If there was a moment for him, it was standing up squarely to those who would pander to the more Xenophobic side of the Quebec cultural debates.  On that, he aquitted himself far better than Caron, for whom it was perhaps understandable, and Ashton, who has no such excuse and should have been ashamed of herself.

 

Hunky_Monkey

R.E.Wood wrote:

Ugh. So utterly depressing. This isn't just about my candidate not winning (been there & done that many times before!) - this is about the entire direction of the party, following on after the frustrating, depressing, & rage-inducing Mulcair alt-liberal years.

One thing I know is I am backing away from the party until I've had a chance to see where Singh takes it, what the party will stand for, and whether or not he grows into the role. I have very little confidence in the NDP's future at this point, and I will not be donating any more money or time, at least in the short term. He has lots of shiny, happy people who can pull the party out of its $5.5 million dollar hole and fill the coffers for the next election; he doesn't need me. Bright side: once I click "unsubscribe" at least I will be free of the endless party emails asking for my money!

Then I can just wait and see... and maybe the party platform (& Singh) will be something I can support in 2019. I'm open to that. Or maybe it won't. After the soul-crushing Mulcair years, I almost don't care anymore. Maybe there will be some new party on the left by 2019. I'd be open to that, too. 

Charlies Angus was some hard left socialist with a bust of Marx in his office or something?  

As for the "soul-crushing" Mulcair years as Liberal lite... far more left than Jack Layton's platform of 2011.  Fact.  But I guess running on new national social programs just isn't enough for you.  Must be style?  Interesting.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I agree that Singh had a built-in advantage. Because of this I think it is unfair to criticize Angus and Caron for coming in so far behind Singh. Caron seems to have been especially disadvantaged because the NDP's membership numbers are so low in Quebec.

Wait, though.  It's a bit hinky if Sikhs in Markham supported Singh because he's Sikh, but it's unfortunate that Quebécers in Québec didn't have sufficient numbers to support Caron because he's a Francophone?

Yes, NDP membership may be low in Québec, but why should that punish Caron any more than any of the other three? 

In other words, if Sikh voters turned up for Singh and that's hinky, why would Francophones turning up for Caron not also be hinky?

Hunky_Monkey

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I agree that Singh had a built-in advantage. Because of this I think it is unfair to criticize Angus and Caron for coming in so far behind Singh. Caron seems to have been especially disadvantaged because the NDP's membership numbers are so low in Quebec.

Wait, though.  It's a bit hinky if Sikhs in Markham supported Singh because he's Sikh, but it's unfortunate that Quebécers in Québec didn't have sufficient numbers to support Caron because he's a Francophone?

Yes, NDP membership may be low in Québec, but why should that punish Caron any more than any of the other three? 

In other words, if Sikh voters turned up for Singh and that's hinky, why would Francophones turning up for Caron not also be hinky?

My guess is that most of the Francophones would be white... 

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

KarlL wrote:

Well, I think the thing was won in the membership sign-up.  With numbers like those, Jaggi could have fluffed the heckler exchange badly and still won handily.

According election filings one-third of the money Jagmeet raised came from Brampton. Since he signed up 40K members, and won with 35K votes I'm sure most of those votes came from Brampton. The Conservative race, like it or not, was much fairer because you had to get broad support from across the country. With this one-member, one-vote Jagmeet could just concentrate on shoring up his support base in Brampton to get out an vote.

With the NDP in debt (plus the Satallite office lagging in court) Jagmeet has his work cut for him to fundraise.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
With this one-member, one-vote Jagmeet could just concentrate on shoring up his support base in Brampton to get out an vote.

Any candidate could mobilize "their" people, though... couldn't they?  What stopped, say, Ashton from mobilizing women?  There' are a lot more women than Sikhs in Canada.  And probably just about as many grey-haired punk rockers.

It's just funny to think that the "real" reason some candidate won was by winning the vote of a visible minority who make up about a percent and a half of the population.

josh

R.E.Wood wrote:

Ugh. So utterly depressing. This isn't just about my candidate not winning (been there & done that many times before!) - this is about the entire direction of the party, following on after the frustrating, depressing, & rage-inducing Mulcair alt-liberal years.

One thing I know is I am backing away from the party until I've had a chance to see where Singh takes it, what the party will stand for, and whether or not he grows into the role. I have very little confidence in the NDP's future at this point, and I will not be donating any more money or time, at least in the short term. He has lots of shiny, happy people who can pull the party out of its $5.5 million dollar hole and fill the coffers for the next election; he doesn't need me. Bright side: once I click "unsubscribe" at least I will be free of the endless party emails asking for my money!

Then I can just wait and see... and maybe the party platform (& Singh) will be something I can support in 2019. I'm open to that. Or maybe it won't. After the soul-crushing Mulcair years, I almost don't care anymore. Maybe there will be some new party on the left by 2019. I'd be open to that, too. 

Well said.  The insiders who backed Singh believe that the only thing wrong with Mulcaiarism was Mulcair.  They think a more charismatic candidate selling a one degree to the left of the Liberals program will be an electoral success.  Expect no challenge to the neo-liberal economic order and lots of talk about love and "identity politics."

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

cco wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

While Jagmeet was never my first choice, it's a good thing that for the first time, a major Canadian political party is led by a person who looks like the global majority and a person of a non-Abrahamic faith tradition.  Those are things to be proud of.

The day a person of no faith at all can hold public office, alas, is clearly decades in the future. "You don't have to be Christian to lead a party, you just have to be religious" doesn't seem like much progress to me. But then, all of the candidates in this race made their solemn declarations of religiosity when called upon to do so, so it's not like any other outcome would've been better on that front.

Yes, the time does need to come when a secular person can be a head of government.  I'm thinking that this is a strong step in that direction, since it at least breaks the stranglehold of the Abrahamic(mainly Christian) religions on the assumption of natural leadership.  

And from what I've heard, David Lewis was basically an athiest.

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

In other words, if Sikh voters turned up for Singh and that's hinky, why would Francophones turning up for Caron not also be hinky?


Are we treading the ground of "religon = race = language" again?

ETA:

Ken Burch wrote:

And from what I've heard, David Lewis was basically an athiest.

"Rumoured to have been basically an atheist" isn't the same thing as "openly atheist", now, is it?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

*YAWN*

I'd figure you'd be more gracious towards Charlie Angus and Guy Caron....

Why?  Hunky doesn't DO "gracious"  His whole attitude towards Babble(and everybody even minutely to the left of his personal comfort zone)is that he is the only grown-up in the room, and everybody else should simply defer to him as the font of all great cosmic wisdom.  It's the paradox of an anti-egalitarisn person being involved in an egalitarian party.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

Ugh. So utterly depressing. This isn't just about my candidate not winning (been there & done that many times before!) - this is about the entire direction of the party, following on after the frustrating, depressing, & rage-inducing Mulcair alt-liberal years.

One thing I know is I am backing away from the party until I've had a chance to see where Singh takes it, what the party will stand for, and whether or not he grows into the role. I have very little confidence in the NDP's future at this point, and I will not be donating any more money or time, at least in the short term. He has lots of shiny, happy people who can pull the party out of its $5.5 million dollar hole and fill the coffers for the next election; he doesn't need me. Bright side: once I click "unsubscribe" at least I will be free of the endless party emails asking for my money!

Then I can just wait and see... and maybe the party platform (& Singh) will be something I can support in 2019. I'm open to that. Or maybe it won't. After the soul-crushing Mulcair years, I almost don't care anymore. Maybe there will be some new party on the left by 2019. I'd be open to that, too. 

Well said.  The insiders who backed Singh believe that the only thing wrong with Mulcaiarism was Mulcair.  They think a more charismatic candidate selling a one degree to the left of the Liberals program will be an electoral success.  Expect no challenge to the neo-liberal economic order and lots of talk about love and "identity politics."

Yes I agree with Josh & R.E. Wood. If people think this is the second coming of the late Jack Layton, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I think we can make gains in places like Halifax and St. John's for example come the next election with the right candidates.  We can maintain our support in Quebec and gain some seats with the right campaign.  I see a nice chunk of gains in Ontario and BC.  Of course, it's a guessing game but apparently I'm more positive about the future.

Are the NDP gains going to come mainly from the Liberals?  Or can the NDP take seats from the Conservatives?

That is going to be the main question I have as we approach 2019.

In 2011 the NDP beat the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals, but it failed to beat the Conservatives.  The NDP needs to win over moderate conservatives/red tories, etc. if it is going to be successful.

You keep acting as though the NDP refuses to TRY to take Conservative seats.  In truth, they NDP has always put just as much effort into trying to take Conservative seats as it has Liberal seats...it's simply that there have been fewer-some, but fewer-seats the NDP had a chance of taking from the Conservatives.  Most of these were seats the Liberals didn't have much chance of taking seats from the Conservatives, either.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
With this one-member, one-vote Jagmeet could just concentrate on shoring up his support base in Brampton to get out an vote.

Any candidate could mobilize "their" people, though... couldn't they?  What stopped, say, Ashton from mobilizing women?  There' are a lot more women than Sikhs in Canada.  And probably just about as many grey-haired punk rockers.

It's just funny to think that the "real" reason some candidate won was by winning the vote of a visible minority who make up about a percent and a half of the population.

Yes but if you don't a broad support from across the country. Women don't live in one area (Niki Ashton), and all of Jagmeet support has been concentrated in one area. I mean 1/3 of all money he raised came from Bramption. While Charlie Angus was the top fundraiser in the entire GTA!

R.E.Wood

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Charlies Angus was some hard left socialist with a bust of Marx in his office or something?  

As for the "soul-crushing" Mulcair years as Liberal lite... far more left than Jack Layton's platform of 2011.  Fact.  But I guess running on new national social programs just isn't enough for you.  Must be style?  Interesting.

No - Charlie Angus was someone I believed in, and I had faith he could appeal to people across the country! I don't have a hard-left purity test. I look for someone I find honest, compelling and inspirational, and hope others will as well. 

Where did you see me praising Jack Layton? I was never a big fan of his either, although I progressed over the course of his leadership from strongly disliking him to being a reasonable supporter, so by that evidence there's a chance I can come around on Singh as well. I also wasn't a fan of Alexa, if you want to go farther back. But yes, Mulcair almost single-handedly pretty much killed my enthusiasm for the party... this campaign was bringing it back... and now it remains to be seen where the NDP goes from here.

And you could at least try to temporarily be less of a judgemental a-hole -- you have a very bad habit of continually reading false unintended interpretations into other people's messages to suit your own narrative.

Debater

Ken Burch wrote:

You keep acting as though the NDP refuses to TRY to take Conservative seats.  In truth, they NDP has always put just as much effort into trying to take Conservative seats as it has Liberal seats...it's simply that there have been fewer-some, but fewer-seats the NDP had a chance of taking from the Conservatives.  Most of these were seats the Liberals didn't have much chance of taking seats from the Conservatives, either.

To date, the Liberals have proven more successful at taking Conservative seats than the NDP has.  We have seen that historically, and most recently in 2015.  That's one of the reasons that the Liberals have been able to beat the Conservatives and form national governments.

The Liberals take seats from both the NDP and the Conservatives, whereas the NDP, except for a few places in Western Canada, takes most of its seats from the Liberals (and from the BQ in 2011).  That's why the NDP couldn't get higher than 2nd place in 2011.  The Liberals were able to win in 2015 because they took Conservative seats in Atlantic Canada, Ontario, and in some places in Western Canada.

The Layton Wave was successful in appealing to BQ & Liberal voters, but not Conservative voters.  So if I was an NDP strategist, my next objective would be to determine how to win Conservative seats, because it will be difficult to form a national government without them.

Hunky_Monkey

Ken Burch wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

*YAWN*

I'd figure you'd be more gracious towards Charlie Angus and Guy Caron....

Why?  Hunky doesn't DO "gracious"  His whole attitude towards Babble(and everybody even minutely to the left of his personal comfort zone)is that he is the only grown-up in the room, and everybody else should simply defer to him as the font of all great cosmic wisdom.  It's the paradox of an anti-egalitarisn person being involved in an egalitarian party.

Nah, just mainly you, Ken... 

NorthReport

Congratulations to all the candidates including the ones that dropped out before today as it is politically courageous to throw your name out into a leadership race

We now have a new leader who won decisively on the first ballot, and who likes to win. As NDP governments are increasing in number at the provincial level, It is time for the NDP to do well federally and to eventually win a federal election

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
With this one-member, one-vote Jagmeet could just concentrate on shoring up his support base in Brampton to get out an vote.

Any candidate could mobilize "their" people, though... couldn't they?  What stopped, say, Ashton from mobilizing women?  There' are a lot more women than Sikhs in Canada.  And probably just about as many grey-haired punk rockers.

It's just funny to think that the "real" reason some candidate won was by winning the vote of a visible minority who make up about a percent and a half of the population.

May be funny, but it's true.  As for women as a comparison, you're smarter than that.

cco

NorthReport wrote:

We now have a new leader who won decisively on the first ballot, and who likes to win.

Oh. That was the problem previously, wasn't it? We had leaders who didn't like to win. It's all clear to me now.

NorthReport
Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Actually no-- you are comparing apples and oranges -- a leadership campaign with an election. Trudeau did not become leader based on precvious experience as a leader. I also think you are not considering the experiences that Singh does have.

Hypocrcy you need to defend you call Apples and Oranges, where as most people would just call it for it is - hypocrcy.

NorthReport

Singh is now in a league with only Tommy Douglas and Jack Layton being the only other candidates who won the leadership on the first ballot

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/grenier-singh-results-1.4315775

Hunky_Monkey

R.E.Wood wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Charlies Angus was some hard left socialist with a bust of Marx in his office or something?  

As for the "soul-crushing" Mulcair years as Liberal lite... far more left than Jack Layton's platform of 2011.  Fact.  But I guess running on new national social programs just isn't enough for you.  Must be style?  Interesting.

No - Charlie Angus was someone I believed in, and I had faith he could appeal to people across the country! I don't have a hard-left purity test. I look for someone I find honest, compelling and inspirational, and hope others will as well. 

Where did you see me praising Jack Layton? I was never a big fan of his either, although I progressed over the course of his leadership from strongly disliking him to being a reasonable supporter, so by that evidence there's a chance I can come around on Singh as well. I also wasn't a fan of Alexa, if you want to go farther back. But yes, Mulcair almost single-handedly pretty much killed my enthusiasm for the party... this campaign was bringing it back... and now it remains to be seen where the NDP goes from here.

And you could at least try to temporarily be less of a judgemental a-hole -- you have a very bad habit of continually reading false unintended interpretations into other people's messages to suit your own narrative.

So, again, it's more style... than policy.  Because let's be honest, none of the candidates were that different than the others with Ashton and Caron a little more to the left than the Angus and Singh.  Angus and Singh are pretty similiar.

It seems only 19% of New Democrats caught on to Charlie.  If he was only able to get 19% in the NDP leadership race compared to Singh's 54%, I think the person with the greater chance to connect with voters and grow the party with be the winner today.

I think one of Charlie's mistakes to be honest was going after Singh as being an "outsider" and then twisting the issue of universality.  It made him look petty.  As I mentioned, a former cabinet minister almost put Singh ahead of Caron because she was sickened by the "dog whistle" politics of some of that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Are we treading the ground of "religon = race = language" again?

No, I'm thinking more like "identity = identity = identity".

Quote:
Yes but if you don't a broad support from across the country. Women don't live in one area (Niki Ashton), and all of Jagmeet support has been concentrated in one area.

Can you explain how "concentrated in one area" is any kind of advantage?

I would think the opposite.  Fewer Sikhs outside of a few areas in Canada, but aren't there slightly more than 50% women everywhere in Canada?

Quote:
May be funny, but it's true.  As for women as a comparison, you're smarter than that.

Ah.  So 1.4% of the total population of Canada swung this, but if I wonder why 50.4% of the population couldn't do the same IF THEY WANTED TO as badly as that 1.4% did, I should give my head a shake?

If you want to say that this was a classic case of Trotsky-style infiltration, just say.  I remember how, when babble was talking about Jeremy Corbyn, and all of his eleventh-hour signups, it surely was no such thing, yes?

Pages